AG Wilson Asks SC Supreme Court to Address Issue of Same Sex Marriage In South Carolina

UPDATE: The SC Supreme Court has issued an order, which basically stays all SC probate courts from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the federal court litigation is resolved. The status quo ante of no same-sex marriage will remain in place.

If you're following the same-sex marriage news these days, you've seen a lot of action in South Carolina this week.

First, on Monday, the United States Supreme Court decided not to hear a case that involved same-sex marriage, with the implication being that SCOTUS wasn't going to overturn a decision banning same-sex marriage. Everyone basically interpreted this to mean that SCOTUS wasn't going to support any ban on same-sex marriages.

Accordingly, on Wednesday the Charleston County Probate Court started accepting applications for marriage licences to same-sex couples. Note, this is different than actually granting the marriage license, but it's tantamount to doing so.

Also on Wednesday, there was a rally at the SC Statehouse to support what the Charleston County Probate Court was doing. At the rally, the supporters of same sex marriage encouraged same-sex couples to apply for marriage licenses throughout the state of South Carolina. Additionally, the group called on Alan Wilson to simply do nothing and not file any action to enforce the provision in our State Constitution banning same-sex marriage.

However, Alan Wilson decided that he was going to ask the SC Supreme Court to resolve this issue. His filing is here. [PDF]

I think that's the right move by Alan Wilson. We have a law. In fact, it's part of our State Constitution. We can't just ignore it without a court formally declaring it to be invalid. If you go read the petition that Wilson filed, that's basically what he's saying.

"Moreover, a public official may not refuse to follow State law because 'he thought the law unconstitutional.' It is, instead, his or her duty to 'follow it until judicially declared invalid.' Trustees of Wofford College v. Burnett, 209 S.C. 92, 104-5, 395 S.E.2d 155 (1946).

This is about the rule of law and legal process. We can't just have Probate Judges in each county deciding if they are or are not going to follow the law. Once the law is ruled unconstitutional, which it will be, then the Probate Courts can issue licences - not before.

Alan Wilson is doing the right thing by filing this petition.

You can't skip steps.

Judge Manning Rules That Attorney General Must Stop Grand Jury Investigation

First things first: here's a link to the the actual order from Judge Manning.

After reading the order, it seems like the most important line is:

"Despite multiple requests, the Attorney General has failed to offer or present to the Court any evidence or allegations which are criminal in nature. Therefore, the Court is left only with uncontroverted allegations of ethics violations propounded by a citizen's letter."

There seems to be some serious disagreement about the factual basis of whether there is a crime here. Just from reading the text of this order, it's clear that Judge Manning doesn't see any "evidence or allegations which are criminal in nature". That seems to be the foundation of the rest of his ruling.

If you assume there are no criminal allegations,  then I kind of see Judge Manning's point here. The Attorney General is the top prosecuting officer in South Carolina, and he can prosecute criminal actions on behalf of the state as he sees fit.

However, allegations of a legislator's ethics violations aren't necessarily a criminal action. That's not to say that an ethics violation is a good thing - it just may not be a crime. It's an ethics complaint, and the Supreme Court has ruled that Ethics Committees have the exclusive authority to hear alleged ethics violations.

I agree with the general idea that before the Attorney General should get involved, there has to be a crime, an indictment, or something more than simply an ethics complaint.

What is troubling to me is that this order seems to preclude the Attorney General from even investigating the matter until the Ethics Committee makes some sort of final disposition. Judge Manning notes that the Ethics Committee is required to refer allegations of criminal conduct to the Attorney General. It seems he's saying the law allows the Attorney General should get a crack at investigating the matter, but only after it's been referred out to him by the Ethics Committee.

To me, if Attorney General Wilson has something that he can charge Harrell with that isn't an ethics violation, he can do that, and this order won't preclude him from going forward.

SC Attorney General Contemplates Fee Changes for Attorneys

Interesting article (or is it a column?) in today's State, if you're a big-time Plaintiff's lawyer. I'm certainly not a big-time anything, but I find it interesting nonetheless.

No time for a detailed analysis, I have to head to the Court of Appeals for oral arguments later.